On Wed, 30 May 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
Now, given that definition, I can't see why anyone
object to a "no links to attack sites" rule of thumb. We don't even
link to sites that engage in copyright violation. Even when we only
*suspect* copyright violation, we err on the side of caution.
We don't link *to suspected copyright violating materials*. We don't ban
links to sites that we suspect copyright violation on.